Rugby - The game they play in heaven

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I have to disagree – that tour actually made them a lot more popular in England and France.

Well, quite. While, here, it didn't diminish their popularity at all.

Frankly I suspect your media largely ignored this tour – losses away from home are easier to gloss over after all.

Actually, the local media is pretty tough on our sporting teams, always keen to pick holes. Nowhere near the degree that your tabloid press does to your teams, but it happens here. Obviously the serious writers can maintain a perspective, but there are those who react from week to week, day to day, minute to minute.

Most tend to bottle it and show yellow however. I believe a punch should still be red – maybe you can find the relevant law?

I shall.

I would agree with you there. Worst case scenario you could always put our RFU in charge of it – they are not known for being lenient – Joubert would probably have got a 6 week ban instead of a dismissed card.

All I want is common sense, and consistency obviously comes under that heading.

You know I thought his body mass had changed…

He's just a six-footer, but incredibly strong. I wouldn't want to see him over-bulked because he will lose his speed.

As I have mentioned before that kick launched a whole inglorious coaching career for the former fly half.

May his right foot develop gout.

That is a super quote. Alluding to the autumn again you can expect a great deal of the former from us, and maybe some of the latter. We will be a lot more disciplined than the Boks were with the out-muscling though.

Brute force, huh? Goodoh. Much easier to deal with than applied thought. Oh, and I did clean up Bill's words a bit for him. Took out the "ums" and "ahs" and split infinitives. He's a prop, after all.

[Tamerlin]

A Red Card for NeoStar.

To match the discipline laws in Rugby I think he should be banned from this thread for six weeks.

[Caligastia]

RED CARD!!!

You're off Neostar!!!

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
If you mean the French had a first-choice pack, they didn't. We lacked de Villiers in the front row and Galthie at the scrum (okay he's not a forward, but he makes a difference by leading them).

I meant that we didn't play against the French when they had a first-choice pack. In the first match, your pack bore no resemblance to the real thing. In the second match, it bore some resemblance, but it still wasn't the real thing.

[Havak]

Well, quite. While, here, it didn't diminish their popularity at all.

Maybe the public did not understand the implications of being turned over on consecutive occasions by the Poms? All you need now is to lose the Bledisoe next year and they will be howling for blood?

Btw do you compete for the Bledisoe every time you play each other or is it simply contested over the games in Aus?

Actually, the local media is pretty tough on our sporting teams, always keen to pick holes

What – even with the ‘sainted’ Wallabies?

Frankly our press is no good for even recycling paper – they are a total waste of time. I don’t think the national side pays any attention to them whatsoever.

All I want is common sense, and consistency obviously comes under that heading

In a way you are re-opening the whole SH-NH debate here you know. The more ‘interpretation’ a referee applies the less consistent to the laws he can be – self defining?

He's just a six-footer, but incredibly strong. I wouldn't want to see him over-bulked because he will lose his speed.

Yes it’s a fine line that one.

May his right foot develop gout.

And (please god) let his mouth seize up to match his brain too.

Brute force, huh? Goodoh. Much easier to deal with than applied thought

I didn’t notice them enjoying it last time.

It remains the case that our ‘thinking’ game trails well behind the ABs and the Wallabies. We squander far too many scoring chances through bad decisions. Never the less god help the side we are playing when we finally click on that one – whatever the side – for the way our forwards grind possession if the backs can utilise it properly we will blow any side away.

*sigh* Havak is asking the unlikely again.

He's a prop, after all.

Hmm – should I feel offended here?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Btw do you compete for the Bledisoe every time you play each other or is it simply contested over the games in Aus?

With the advent of the Tri-Nations, the Bledisloe Cup has been folded into it, so to speak. So the Bledisloe is now an annual, two-match series within the Tri-Nations. What it means, basically, is that the holder has to lose both matches in order to lose the trophy.

What – even with the ‘sainted’ Wallabies?

Even the 'sainted' Wallabies. The media got stuck into them after the losses on the last NH tour.

Frankly our press is no good for even recycling paper –

Not even the Guardian or the Independent? They were the only ones worth reading last time I was there. (Just between you and me, don't tell a soul, but I have had a soft spot for the Telegraph, reactionary bugle that it is. At least they're literate!)

In a way you are re-opening the whole SH-NH debate here you know. The more ‘interpretation’ a referee applies the less consistent to the laws he can be – self defining?

I'm talking about the judiciary and cards. I'd've thought they both could/should be pretty straight forward with set penalties for various offences. (I'll post the results of my research into cards separately)

*sigh* Havak is asking the unlikely again.

Roy Orbison's "In Dreams" springs to mind.

Hmm – should I feel offended here?

Oops! And I dubbed you a tighthead, too, didn't I? At least the loosehead prop only gets half his grey matter scrambled.

[finbar]

The Laws, Cards, Et Al

Well, typically, the laws relating to cards need a couple of good reads in order to make total sense. They come under the Foul Play chapter:

Law 10 - Foul Play

DEFINITION

Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct.

That's pretty straight forward. However:

5 SANCTIONS

(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended and sent off.

I can only assume English was not the original author's first language. Taken with what follows, I assume the above statement gives the ref 3 options: a talking to; or a caution and yellow card; or a red card.

(b) A player who has been cautioned and temporarily suspended who then commits a second cautionable offence within the Foul Play Law must be sent off.

Meaning, simply, a second yellow card means a red card.

All of the above applies to obstruction, unfair play, etc. But Dangerous Play and Misconduct get their own sub-sub-section within the sub-section:

4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT

(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strikes an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(d) Tripping. A player must not trip an opponent with the leg or foot.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.

A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff arm to strike an opponent.

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.

The referee decides whether or not a tackle is dangerous. The referee takes into account the circumstances, such as the apparent intentions of the tackler, or the nature of the tackle, or the defenceless position of the player being tackled or knocked over. Any of these may result in serious injury.

All forms of dangerous tackling must be punished severely. A player who commits this type of foul must be sent off. Advantage may be played, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded.

So all of the above warrant a straight red card. Meaning Havak is right - a punch, under the laws, warrants a red card. The only judgement call for the ref seems to relate to how dangerous a tackle might be, and a punch isn't a tackle. I'm also not sure, under the above rules, how Butch James has stayed on a rugby field as long as he has.

(BTW, there is a law, which I skipped over in order to avoid posting the entire laws of the game, which justified O'Brien sending off Joubert. After repeated offences by different players of the same team, the ref can issue a warning to the entire team, and send off the next player from that team who commits the same offence)

Anyway. It's about time someone undertook to redraft these laws clearly, concisely and logically.

[Havak]

the holder has to lose both matches in order to lose the trophy.

Making it a trophy that takes some winning. It now makes sense to me how important it is to both nations.

The media got stuck into them after the losses on the last NH tour.

I would have liked to have read some of that to see how it compares to the output of our rabid hacks.

The forwards were sadly lacking in both big games. Eddie knew that, and work continues apace. We will see how far you have come on that one when you step into the white meat grinder.

Not even the Guardian or the Independent?

Keep in mind I’m pure front row material okay

I very seldom read any newspapers anymore but I always found the Guardian rather pseudo-intellectual and the Independent too bland for me (do we have an opinion, dare we show it?). The Telegraph I get to see occasionally – it covers rugby reasonably well. You should see the tabloids – rugby gets one column on a Monday seven pages in from the back after all the soccer crud has been over-discussed for the plebs.

God I hate football. Now where are my pills.

I'm talking about the judiciary and cards

Yes I got that actually – I was being quite deliberately obtuse on this.

Thanks for checking up on the laws. I knew I was on fairly solid ground on the punch front from listening to various refs in the club house last year (if you recall a favourite player of mine was red carded and later banned for a reaction punch when an opposing player jumped on his back)

I couldn’t agree more that they need re-drafting in plain language.

[Caligastia]

Well the only rugby games on FSW for the next couple of weeks are two NPC games and 1 currie cup game. Does anyone else have any interest in the NPC? The two games are Waikato v North Harbour and Auckland v North Harbour.

[Havak]

To be honest I don't know much about NPC other than it's the nuts and bolts competition in NZ, and that is is indirectly responsible for you losing the world cup after you refused to move it down the calendar when the Aussies told you to.

Do Auckland form the basis of the Blues or are we talking a totally different level of rugby?

[Caligastia]

I think the Blues are made up of the best of these NPC teams: North Harbour, Counties Manakau, and Auckland. Im not totally sure thats correct though.

EDIT- NZ Super12 teams are a consolidation of the best of certain NPC teams. I dont know exactly how many NPC teams there are in NZ, but I know there are a lot more than the 5 they are consolidated into for the super 12.

[Havak]

Cheers for the information.

I'm intrigued - I may have a read up on the NPC when I get chance.

[Caligastia]

When I was growing up, Auckland dominated the NPC to the point of boring predictability. Even as an Aucklander I was sick of them winning. So I started supporting Canterbury because thats where my Mum's side of the family is from, and suddenly they started to dominate. Now Im back to being an Auckland supporter.

Now youve got me wondering which provincial teams make up which super12 teams...I will try and find out.

[Caligastia]

Here is a brief history of the NPC:

http://www.nzrugby.com/2002/history/history_npc.asp

From looking at the Blues players it seems that the Blues are made up of the best of Auckland, North Harbour, and Northland.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Well the only rugby games on FSW for the next couple of weeks are two NPC games and 1 currie cup game. Does anyone else have any interest in the NPC? The two games are Waikato v North Harbour and Auckland v North Harbour.

As I don't even know if our National Rugby Newspaper is giving the results of the NPC matches and as this competition isn't covered at all by the french TV sport magazines, I don't know the NPC teams.

As my bets have been terrible during the Tri-Nations you can easily imagine what could be the result of any bet on a NPC match, random at best.